2004 PLP 2391 (YLR)
MUZAFAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 2391 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | MUZAFAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2391 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 2391 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 2391 (YLR) (MUZAFAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghazanfar Ali Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S .497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337/367/511
Matter was not reported to police for two days after the alleged occurrence
Complainant, sixteen days after the occurrence, had stated in favour of accused
Statement of victim had not been recorded by Investigating Officer
Even in challan submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C. name of victim had not been mentioned in the calendar of witnesses
Allegation against accused needing further inquiry within purview of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., accused was admitted to bail. Khalid Shamshad Rana for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner has sought his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.118, registered at Police Station Kot Samba, on 11-5-2003, for offences under sections 337/367 read with section 511, P.P.O.
2. Succinctly, the allegation against the petitioner is that on 9-5-2003, he attempted to abduct Muhammad Bilal for the purpose of unnatural offence, hnwever, his attempt was foiled by the complainant and the P. Ws.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 26-5-2003 and has been sent to the judicial lock-up after completion of investigation.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. It has been noticed that the matter was not reported to the police for two days after the alleged occurrence; on 27-5-2003 i.e. 16 days after the occurrence the complainant of the case stated in favour of the petitioner; the statement of the victim Muhammad 13iIa1 has not been recorded by the investigating Officer; in challan/report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. the name of Muhammad Bilal has not been mentioned in the calendar of witnesses. In these circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand, with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 5 However, before parting with this order I would like to record my disappointment vis- -vis the investigation of the case. It is most unfortunate that the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of the star witness Muhammad Bilal. I fail to understand how this case would proceed further. A copy of this order would be sent to the District Police Officer, Rahim Yar Khan, who would personally hold an inquiry, take action against the delinquent police officials and submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench, within three weeks. Disposed of. H.B.T./M-247/L Bail granted.